Skip to main content
7:30 pm
greenhouse gas-free service to the tjpa. so in summary, the sfpuc is offering us an ongoing service rate that would be 10% lower than pg&e's. an initial cost of connection that is again roughly $650,000 less than pg&e's. and has a comparable level of reliability of service. and so the recommendation is that the board authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with puc. >> thank you. actually i did have a quick question. i wasn't clear from the summary, the $661,000 of the itcc, are we going to discount that amount to the puc? because in the summary it said a minus and i wasn't sure we would offer that credit to the puc, since we would not have to
7:31 pm
pay it to pg&e. >> the puc has said is that they would limit the cost to the tjpa to the amount that it would cost them to establish pg&e network grid service, less the amount of that fee. so that is a further decrease in the initial cost investment to the tjpa for the amount of that fee, which at the time of the pg&e proposal was 22% of the costs. >> thank you. director metcalf? >> why is the sf puc proposing to subsidize the installation by 3. 5 million dollars? >> the puc is here and barbara hale could speak to that.
7:32 pm
but in terms of bringing us on as a customer, they are able to further utilize the amount -- to sell on the retail market additional energy that they would otherwise would be surplus and selling on the whole sale market. >> do they make the money back? >> they make the money back. >> thank you. that is all i need. >> director reiskin? >> just a comment, as the chair said, first of all, a very good and comprehensive report. so i appreciate that. and i also think as the transbay terminal itself is enabling a sustainability form of transportation and brings a very big environmental benefit to the region, i think it's very appropriate that we would be powering it with clean hetch
7:33 pm
hetchy power. so i commend the puc for an innovative and aggressive proposal and i think this is a win-win and good for the puc and it's good for the project and it's good for the city. so i think i'm happy to see the recommendation. thank you. >> i will just concur with director reiskin. and i think over the last -- actually over the last year the board of supervisors has spent quite a bit of time comparing rates and offerings between pg&e and puc with community choice aggregation. i think i came out of that process with incredible faith with the public utilities commission to really work through and offer the best deal possible both for the city and i do think it's a big win-win in terms of the revenue that is going to flow back to the city. and of course, the savings that will occur at tjpa and of course, the environmental impacts or the benefits is also a huge bonus. so i'm really happy to see this come before
7:34 pm
us and happy to support this as well. any other commentses or questions? let's take a vote on this item. >> motion to approve this. >> second. >> with a first and second, and any member of public wishing to comment on the item (roll call vote ) that is four ayes and item 7 is approved. >> thank you. can we please move to item no. 8. >> item no. 8 is approving the updated initial projects report and a resolution of project compliance with for the allocation of regional measure 1/ab funds in amount of $47,800,000 for the transit center program >> sarah will report on this item. >> directors this is the standard compliancing.
7:35 pm
this particular allocation allows us to certify and issue an ntp for the first portion of the structural steel contract. as we have done in the past with mtc, when we have the land sale funds available from the close of the tower parcel t, we would actually rescind whatever we haven't spent and return it to mtc and would be available for a future allocation. so this is $47.8 million in funds to be determined by mtc and i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> director reiskin. >> it's great to see this moving forward and enabling the ntp package. the table in the back that showed the revenue plan for both the $1.6 million project and total $4.5 .
7:36 pm
the land sales items, it was maybe $400 something million for phase 1 and double that for the total project. what are the assumptions underlaying those numbers and what is the level of certainty with those? >> the land sale assumptions are based on projections that are real estate consultant as part of the tifia loan. there is a range of numbers that are possible and we have of course used the lower more conservative assumptions. and we'll see how the market performs as we move forward. we do have -- if the board would like to review in closed session, we do have those projections on a block-by-block basis, but we do keep those confidential. >> okay. thank you. >> sure.
7:37 pm
>> move approval. >> so we have a motion to approve, and we have a second. >> and no members of the publication indicated that they wanted to address you on the item. so with that roll call (roll call vote ) . >> that is four ayes and item 8 is approved. thank you. >> can we call items 9 and 10 together? >> item 9 is approving the minutes of the november 19th, 2012 meet >> members of the board, good morning and happy new year. i would like to direct your attention to item 9 at the bottom of page 3. this does not actually request what was said at the meeting. the board gave specific direction to staff to come back basically other issues to be studied in the supplemental eir
7:38 pm
and directions were to come back to the board, either in december or january. now the reason i am addressing you here is that one thing that was really basically skipped over is that the authority mandated in the alignment, but what happened as a result of that is that the platforms have not been pushed back to the other side of main street, on the other side of the street. what that means if we pursue this avenue, we will never, ever be able to connect transbay to the east bay. and the sooner we look at this and address this, the better. thank you. >> that concludes the members of the public that indicated that they wanted to address you under that item. >> thank you. i am actually looking at our november minutes right now and i'm not sure what aspect of the minutes that were referred to. director metcalf? >> i think i was the one who
7:39 pm
made comments there. thank you for the comments. i agree that this is an area that needs future study. i do think that the minutes are accurate. we did authorize moving forward with that professional services agreement. we are requesting that we talk about this at a future meeting as the minute say. so i think you are flagging an important issue for us, but i think we should adopt the minutes >> thank you, director metcalf. i assume this is referring to item no. 9? >> that is right. >> when the board did request an update on dtx and high speed rail and i do see that reflected in the minutes. would you like to make that more specific in the minutes? >> no, i'm comfortable with the minutes. >> we do have items 9 and so before us. >> i think i'm going to abstain from item 9. >> so we'll call them separately then. >> i do know if you have read the minutes and you feel
7:40 pm
comfortable with them you can vote on them, but if you rather not we can do them separately. do we have a motion to approve. >> so moved. >> motion and second and we'll vote on that first. >> [-ebs/] director mett kav? >> aye. >> director reiskin? >> aye. >> vice-chair ortiz? >> obstain. >> chair kim? >> aye. >> that is three ayes and one abstained and item 9 is approved. >> go ahead and call item 10. >> approving the minutes of meeting december 13, 2013. >> moved and second. >> no members of public who wish to address you on that item. (roll call vote? >> . four ayes and item 10 is approved. >> at this time i do not see any further items in our open session. do we have a motion to convene into closed session.
7:41 pm
>> so moved. >> second. >> at this time we do ask members of the public to exit the room to discuss closed session items and we want to thank everyone for coming today. >> i did want to note that no members indicated that they wish to address you on the closed session item. >> seeing none, public comment on this item is closed. the meeting is now back in open session and counsel will report on the closed session. >> >> the board unanimously resolved to direct the executive director [speaker not understood]
7:42 pm
for l1,432,500 and resolve upon successful closure, surmisal of the eminent domain action. >> thank you no further items? >> that conclude yours agenda for today. thank you, meeting adjourned.
7:43 pm
7:44 pm
7:45 pm
7:46 pm
7:47 pm
7:48 pm
7:49 pm
7:50 pm
7:51 pm
7:52 pm
7:53 pm
7:54 pm
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
7:57 pm
7:58 pm
7:59 pm